Monday, October 21, 2013

Historic and controversial album covers part two

Historic And Controversial Album Covers-part Two

In part one of our article series (one of three) about famous album cover art, we discussed a couple of iconic Beatle album covers and some controversial album covers by other artists. Lets continue our discussion with part two of our series.

The Rolling Stones make our list for their 1968 album called Beggars Banquet. It was the first cover not to feature a band photograph; instead the Stones decided to use a picture of an unsightly, filthy bathroom with graffiti-la...

In part one of our article series (one of three) about famous album cover art, we discussed a couple of iconic Beatle album covers and some controversial album covers by other artists. Lets continue our discussion with part two of our series.

The Rolling Stones make our list for their 1968 album called Beggars Banquet. It was the first cover not to feature a band photograph; instead the Stones decided to use a picture of an unsightly, filthy bathroom with graffiti-laced walls. The record label in the U.K. (Decca) and the U.S. label, London Records, both balked at the cover (it was considered to be in poor taste) and a bitter three-month legal battle began. The Rolling Stones lost the battle and the album was replaced with an elegant formal party invitation (but the cover was restored for CD pressings in the mid 80's).

Naughty bathroom behavior album cover first surfaced in 1966, when the Mamas & the Papas released their LP called If You Can Believe Your Eyes And Ears. The cover, a picture of the flower power quartet squeezed into an old bathtub next to a toilet, apparently received so many complaints that the record company (Dunhill) was compelled to rush out a replacement cover, with graphics that promoted the groups hit singles blocking the offending toilet. They even went so far as to issue yet another cover, this time removing the toilet completely.

Middle fingers have always been taboo on album covers and the outrage began in 1957 when Capitol Records released an album by the doo wop group the Five Keys. An innocent cover, it pictured the vocal group posing together in snazzy suits. But it seems that lead singer Rudy Wests forefinger was imagined by some to be a specific part of the male anatomy. So a decision was made for subsequent issues to have the finger in question airbrushed out.

Moby Grapes self-titled release in 1967, also had a finger of prominence displayed incorrectly, but the album cover was quickly airbrushed by Columbia Records.

A misplaced(?) finger/thumb caused another uproar in 1971 when Warner Brothers released Alice Coopers new album called Love It To Death. His gesture was not taken too well and was censored, the middle finger being airbrushed away. In fact, four different versions of the front cover exist, apparently in the picture his thumb could possibly be mistaken for a specific part of the male anatomy.

David Bowies cover art featuring a half-dog, half-Bowie figure (painted by Guy Peellaert) for his 1974 album called Diamond Dogs, caused quite a stir. Apparently, the record company (RCA) did not like the fact that the Bowie-dog was anatomically correct and had the offending appendage airbrushed out on subsequent releases.

Apparently, pulling bubble gum off of a womans exposed breast is a major crime, or at the very least, a reason to reissue an album cover. Or so, that is what the german heavy metal band the Scorpions found out in 1979 with their album release called Loverdrive. The album cover features a man and a woman sitting in the backseat of a car, with the man removing the scandalous bubble gum from her breast. It was subsequently reissued with a black cover with a blue scorpion on it (thankfully the scorpion was fully-clothed). The band had another album (Virgin Killer) cover nixed because of a nude cover of a young girl.

In 1994, scandal found the rock group called the Black Crowes, because their album cover Amorica showed pubic hair from a Hustler magazine photograph. The close-up of a womans mid-section in a bikini, apparently exhibits too much hair and made the public uncomfortable. Pressured by powerful conservative retail chains, the record company (Universal) had to reissue an alternative cover, just a bikini over a black background (sans the offending hair).

In our third part of our series about controversial album cover art, we will again turn our focus to offensive album covers.